IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 1906 of 2006()
1. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, S/O.JANARDHANAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. PRASANNA, W/O.SOMAN PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :22/09/2008
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.1906 OF 2006
-------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd September, 2008.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the complainant, in C.C.1049/2003
on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam,
challenging the order of acquittal passed by the court by its order
dated 3.1.2006 under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C.
2. The above case was instituted for the offence under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegation that the
cheque in question for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was dishonoured
and thereby committed the offence. In this appeal it is stated that
the complainant was absent on 3.1.2006 due to mistake in noting
down the date of posting by the clerk of the counsel for the
complainant. According to the counsel the clerk of the counsel for
the complainant noted down the date as 13.1.2006 instead of
3.1.2006. It was on the basis of such mistake crept in taking down
the date the complainant was absent when the case was called on
3.1.2006. Thus, according to the counsel for the appellant there
was no wilful negligence on the part of the complainant in
Crl. Appeal No: 1906/2006 2
appearing and hence the order of the court below is unsustainable
and liable to be set aside.
3. I have heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the
counsel for the respondent. On a perusal of the impugned
judgment it can be seen that the case was posted for evidence on
5.3.2005. On that day the complainant was absent but represented
by his counsel. Thereafter the case was posted for evidence on
26.10.2005. On that day also the complainant was absent and
represented by his counsel. Again, thereafter it was adjourned for
the evidence but with a specific order that no further time will be
granted and posted on 3.1.2006. On 3.1.2006 also the complainant
as well as his counsel were absent. In the impugned order the court
has specifically noted that the complainant had never appeared
before the court after taking the case on file. So, on the date on
which the impugned order was passed, neither the complainant nor
his counsel was present and no application was filed for the
adjournment of the case. It is also mentioned by the court below
that the case is an oldest one on the file of the court and further
adjournment of the case will be resulted delay in disposing the case.
It is under the above circumstances, the court passed an order
Crl. Appeal No: 1906/2006 3
under Section 256(1) Cr.P.C acquitting the accused. Having regard
to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and the detailed
reasoning given by the court below, I am of the opinion that no
interference of this Court is called for and this appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
In the result there is no merit in the appeal and the same is
dismissed accordingly.
V.K.MOHANAN
JUDGE
jj